Monday, 20 April 2009

It's possible that I will eventually work the Mountain Goddess herself into some kind of metallic manifestation. I suspect it is a long way off. However, in a discussion of one old representation of her, I came across the following about the Venus of Willendorf:

In fact, her most satisfactory, and most satisfying, position is being held in the palm of the hand. When seen under these conditions, she is utterly transformed as a piece of sculpture. As fingers are imagined gripping her rounded adipose masses, she becomes a remarkably sensuous object, her flesh seemingly soft and yielding to the touch.

What her identity and purpose may have been, why and for what reason she was carved, becomes an even more pressing question. If we dismiss all associations with goddesses and fertility figures, and assume an objective response to what we see, she might be identified as simply a Stone-Age doll for a child.

The writer goes on to knock this idea back, but the handling of the artefact I can relate to. In particular as I made such artefacts, the feel of it, the heft of it, as I worked in wax were, and are, very important.

Dolls are meant to be held in the hand (as one does in play).

That's how dolls differ from statues, or statuetttes. Statues are meant to be put somewhere, displayed, honoured by some position in some cared for place, or co-ordinated into a sacred place: a niche in a grotto, an altar in a temple, or a cabinet in a shop. They are about being seen, whatever the end point is for such orchestrated observances, in consumption or towards salvation.

I'll be no doubt making statues as the months go by, but, it seems, I started in wanting to make dolls. Metal figurines to be held in the hand for a reason which remains unknown to me, except when I hold them.

The key word in the text quoted above is satisfying.

The consorts must be satisfying when in hand. Even if they end up as statues.

When in the hand, they can be satisfying through their substantial weight of metal, nearly 2 kilograms. They can be satisfying because of their curves, their waists, their buttocks on the palm of the hand.

This is also why such small metal figurines have no bases, they ruin the balance of the doll, (though the bases are good for setting up on a bench top or recess).

Monday, 6 April 2009

I am having a few problems getting these two brothers from Northern Tasmania into their final form, before investment. The wax figures have been hollowed to 5mm or so, then a plaster and sand core poured in. Nails will be used to hold the core in place when the wax is melted out of the investment.

They are Consorts to the Mountain Goddess, which in their case it must be Quamby Bluff.

The one with its bum to us has been officially named, "Are you blaming this on our generation?"

The other one I am not so sure. Perhaps a string of curses.

They are less abstract than the previous consorts, and double the size, required a core to save metal. Hopefully this will lead to fewer incidents of back strain.

The advice came in to do bigger pieces, do finer features, I think took this on board to mean more naturalism, but the next advice was, well, 'Your abstract forms..."

As I am interesting primarily in the symbolic, the naturalism/abstract conversation is of little interest to me. The symbolic is where we do our thinking after all, and truth and beauty are just teases....

It is my interest in the symbolic that leads me to prefer artefacts to art. I want to make artifacts, and so make the symbolic substantial, even if they then need a core to make them safe for bad backs.